Be really fucking good and/or lucky. Doing something significant helps too, like inventing a style of art (see: Jackson Pollock who is mostly famous for the style rather than objective quality of his work). Having your work shown somewhere important can help too, if it doesn't get displayed at a big venue it's rarely considered significant. I'm using significant in the way that it is typically used in the museum/art collection world here, what may be significant to you or your friends is different from significance in the typical art world sense.
Most digital and game art is trash, and that is by design. Not the quality of the work per se, but how it is consumed. Viewed and then almost instantly forgotten. In the grand scheme of things, the vast majority of it will be lost to the sands of time. Not only due to the fleeting nature of the medium, but for archival reasons (do you think you will be able to plug in your SCSI drive or open a psd in 300 years?).
Non-realistic art almost never has an expiration date. Cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse are classic examples of art that went through a few evolutions and then stayed the same for decades with no one complaining.
Of course, that doesn't mean all realism is necessarily dated. Museums have no problem staying in business displaying artifacts from hundreds of years ago.
There's also the fact some art becomes timeless through luck. The Emperor's New Groove was mostly forgotten for a decade, but thanks to a certain meme, people appreciate it again.
Being timeless isn't something anyone can decide they want to be. Its pretty much luck. Id argue even if you invent a new technique, as soon as someone comes along and does something better with it you'll be forgotten most likely.
Being timeless isn't something anyone can decide they want to be. Its pretty much luck. Id argue even if you invent a new technique, as soon as someone comes along and does something better with it you'll be forgotten most likely.
I don't know about that. How many games have successfully cloned Nintendo's artstyle and received similar fanfare? I know some games that tried to copy Zelda, but were never heard of again.
Or when that new Guilty Gear game dropped and it nearly perfected "2D graphics that's actually 3D" I was expecting a whole bunch of clones to come in and one up it. But the only other game that did was ironically, by the same studio that made it!
Disagree with @JordanN , much of the stylized art will be forgotten too. Produce work of great quality that is different from the rest , the ideal situation is that you art is then recognized and talked about maybe even used in a film or tv series that will be watched time and time again though time. I would say that if you produced a book you also stand more of a chance of being remembered. Work in different media Andy Warhol once painted a car for instance. Or do art that is more permanent like working in metals or stone. Digital media will be gone long before these.
But do not expect to be remembered, or even plan to be. Many names of today will fade away and will be replaced.
@JordanN This topic does not seem to be explicitly about game art, especially since OP is talking about 100's of years. Having said that, even in games being the first to do something only matters until someone comes along and does it better. Resident Evil in most peoples minds is the first survival horror game, even though it borrows a lot from Alone in the Dark and is a rough remake of Sweet Home on the NES. Wolfenstein was not the first FPS. GTA3 was not the first 3d sandbox game. MGS was not the first stealth game. You see where Im going with this. In terms of raw art direction your Nintendo analogy doesnt make much sense, Zeldas art direction changes with every game. So visually they chase different style that others have done same as anyone else.
@JordanN This topic does not seem to be explicitly about game art, especially since OP is talking about 100's of years.
As long as ports/emulation exists, games will always be visible for the future and beyond. Especially as it benefits these same companies to keep their IP's relevant for future audiences.
Having said that, even in games being the first to do something only matters until someone comes along and does it better. Resident Evil in most peoples minds is the first survival horror game, even though it borrows a lot from Alone in the Dark and is a rough remake of Sweet Home on the NES. Wolfenstein was not the first FPS. GTA3 was not the first 3d sandbox game. MGS was not the first stealth game. You see where Im going with this.
The gist I was getting was as long as a game is good or executes a concept really well, doesn't mean it has to be forgotten by newer ones. For example, I don't believe GTA 3 is not as relevant now because there are more open world games, but because Rockstar has since done newer things with the IP. GTA 5 is actually a last generation game and yet it still sells on next gen platforms because a lot people still see the game as worth playing as much as any newer PS4/XBO one.
In terms of raw art direction your Nintendo analogy doesnt make much sense, Zeldas art direction changes with every game. So visually they chase different style that others have done same as anyone else.
See the above. Zelda's art changed per generation, but not because the art itself was old or irrelevant. You can see this with the Wind Waker series. Even on newer platforms, Toon Link is conceptually just as much the same as he was on Gamecube. Hardware/time also hasn't stopped Nintendo from re-using old graphics in their games. Mario's 8-bit sprite still remains untouched whenever it's brought back. Look at Mario Maker for example.
make something that resonates with culture. it will do a lot of the heavy lifting for you.
there is a really good book on the subject, called Hitmakers , they really crank into detail how things become popular and timeless, with a really great example about the 5 big impressionists, who where actually laughed at and looked down upon at the time, but are now considered timeless masters.
Most digital and game art is trash, and that is by design. Not the quality of the work per se, but how it is consumed. Viewed and then almost instantly forgotten. In the grand scheme of things, the vast majority of it will be lost to the sands of time. Not only due to the fleeting nature of the medium, but for archival reasons (do you think you will be able to plug in your SCSI drive or open a psd in 300 years?).
Interesting perspective. I think we are seeing a change though where film/ vr/ video games are having a much deeper impact on culture across the globe. Think Mario or Lara Croft in Tomb Raider. Or Even Last of Us etc... It makes sense considering the size of the games industry worldwide etc. In 100 years + game art will rise in cultural status to the same level we give ancient artifacts now. (well not the same but similar...)
This makes me think of the ancient Aztecs and a stunningly well preserved basketball court.
Also How games are being consumed is changing also, with DLC's and immersive storytelling etc.... I wonder how this effects its cultural power.
Edit: Resonance, this is a really important idea, you can see it with writers and tv series like game of thrones: Medievel settings but modern world problems . However one thing that severely effects media is that it gets dated quickly.
What seperates the books / films that you can read from hundreds of years ago and find them just as fresh and insightful (maybe more) than todays offerings?
I suppose archetypes etc play a factor...
Thanks to everyone for their insight I hope more ideas can be shared.
Open Question: How do you make art that lasts throughout time. That people can see in hundreds of years and still admire it?
...well without sounding a tad elitist, I think a question more akin to posting on another forum, preferably traditional in aspect other than here. Because digital media for example, with all due respect is ephemeral in nature, basically a collection of sampled dots projected onto a electronic display screen, so what would happen if someone and/or thing pulls the plug...?! or heaven forefend, a zombie apocalypse manifests (...the way things are heading at the moment globally, I wouldn't at all be surprised by the way) in the not too distant future...?!
Anyway on a serious note, the era for creating timeless visual artistic masterpieces has sadly been and gone, to be clear what I mean by that is specifically European art periods pertaining too the 14th century revival "Renaissance" and Baroque. Indeed one such Master for me, really an idol pretty much from childhood when I first laid eyes on his work via a high school library, namely:"The Seven Works of Mercy" by Michelangelo Merisi da Carravagio circa: 1607 (390 × 260 cm oil on canvas) currently residing in the church of Pio Monte della Misericordia, Naples, thus had consequently set my feet on a personal path of creative discovery.
Yeah, I'd agree. Changing to a more permanent medium, and a less saturated medium, will increase your chances of being remembered, if you're any good or particularly unique. Digital art, being endlessly duplicatable, and there being no "original" art-piece, is an odd sort of thing. Combine that with amazing digital artists in the thousands and thousands, and it makes it all seem rather pointless. Good art on the internet is almost a vapid universality at this point. Bad art too. It's everywhere you look. And it could all be destroyed just as quickly, or it could simply be lost as we trudge forward; lost to incompatibility, or not making the transfer to a new harddrive, or your name gets detached from it and it just becomes part of the internet. Digital media is fleeting.
And anyway, don't go into things wanting to be remembered, because, really, how many people are remembered? In the spectrum of things, a ridiculously small percentage made a lasting name for themselves, and who knows how long even that remembrance will last? Caravaggio was breathtaking. Rembrandt. Bosch. Bouguereau. Will we always remember them? Certainly not. And many artists are forgotten first, and remembered later, upon rediscovery.
Basically, it's complicated, we live in a temporary universe, we live temporary lives, we make temporary art. We're lucky we're even here. To leave a real impact would be amazing, but how can you even judge whether you've made an impact? And what if you wind up hating the piece that makes you famous/remembered?
Artistic relevance has a lot to do with capturing a cultural zeitgeist. It has to be something completely original, accepted by a mainstream audience, and permeates into all facets of culture beyond the initial target audience.
These sprite are 38 years old, and is probably more iconic today than it was in 1980:
These are 35 years old:
As to re-creating this from an artistic point of view?
- Be Iconic and immediately recognizable - Be Tech-Irrelevant (technological bells and whistles actually distract from this) - Be attached to something with VERY broad appeal (game, art, film etc). - People who are not gamers, or even players of the game still need to know what it is when being referenced.
If I were to venture a guess, the games that hit on this somewhat recently were Minecraft and Pokemon GO (which is already a 22 year old IP).
***BTW Thx for the book recommend Pixelmasher, totally gonna read this****
Open Question: How do you make art that lasts throughout time. That people can see in hundreds of years and still admire it?
So far as I can see, whether it lasts is down to how people respond ultimately, but to be in with a chance you need to have been developing ideas and themes across decades / an entire life time to get to the point where you're either in a place to create a timeless piece, or have a timeless collection of work anyway as a result of the time and effort put in. But basically, over the years one tends to clarify and realise themes and ideas in a way that goes beyond the superficial skills or presentation of art and taps a deeper human element that emerges across a body of work -- that's what really appeals to people when defining a classic artist I think.
Non-realistic art almost never has an expiration date. Cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse are classic examples of art that went through a few evolutions and then stayed the same for decades with no one complaining.
So Style is timeless? really?
i dunno man some of the styles which worked in the past don't really work that well nowadays anymore. others do. There are plenty of timeless realistic paintings that lasted for hundreds of years.
Mickey Mouse isnt even 100 years old yet, and while a lot of things might stay timeless. others died out, be it for not updating their style to a more modernized look. others died exactly out of this. Very successful brands die for various reasons, more or less stylized. It does happen.
I don't think there is a formula that one can follow and BAM you made something timeless that generations of people will love. I also think it comes down to a damn lot of skill and even more luck.
i dunno man some of the styles which worked in the past don't really work that well nowadays anymore. others do. There are plenty of timeless realistic paintings that lasted for hundreds of years.
Mickey Mouse isnt even 100 years old yet, and while a lot of things might stay timeless. others died out, be it for not updating their style to a more modernized look. others died exactly out of this.
I don't think there is a formula that one can follow and BAM you made something timeless that generations of people will love. I also think it comes down to a damn lot of skill and even more luck.
9 times out of 10, I would rate Stylized art as having a longer lasting appeal because there are fewer risks of the uncanny valley.
With realism, anyone can tell when art either gets close to looking like real life, or it looks completely fake to the human eye.
With stylized art, you're not holding a magnifying glass looking to see how many skin pores you can find, or if the eyelashes are lined up correctly. It's as good as your imagination wants it to be.
In regards to Medieval Art and Mickey Mouse, again, I think a distinction needs to be made that it wasn't the art that killed it or it has no place today. We still use black and white photos even though color exists. It's less popular, but the lack of color doesn't make it offensive to us.
What if I told you that Mickey Mouse's artstyle from the 1930s was still popular today? A game like Cuphead is a recent example where the artstyle did stand the test of time today. There are many things to judge about it but whether it's real or not, wouldn't be one of them.
Meanwhile, the same can't be said about old movie or game graphics that tried to be real. As impressive as they were, technology always improving makes these flaws far more obvious to spot, and thus modern audiences highly frown or complain what they're looking at is just uncanny or unreal.
Jordan : at the risk of sounding like an ass, I would say that there is a bit of reading comprehension problem here (which, admittedly, kindof comes with the territory of internet discussions). Neox never said that stylized art can't be timeless, or that realistic art will be. He simply refuted the statement "Make stylized art" as some kind of be all, end all answer to the question - because it obviously isn't one, as demonstrated by the counter-example of naive "stylized" imagery from the middle ages.
Now the statement could be rephrased as "Make good, timeless stylized art" instead ... but then it becomes a completely circular argument
It's ultimately up to the person on what kind of art they want to make. I gave my reasons for why I think stylized art might be the answer or why it might age less, but it's just my recommendation, not a bible.
Caravaggio did some pretty stellar realistic work that stood the test of centuries. He was more known for his dramatic theatrical lighting and composition.
I can see contemporary sculptor Ron Mueck's work being discussed 100 years from now, but his work is more about mundane-ness of subject matter, and the scale.
It's ultimately up to the person on what kind of art they want to make. I gave my reasons for why I think stylized art might be the answer or why it might age less, but it's just my recommendation, not a bible.
Don't get me wrong I am totally more into stylized art than I am into realism, especially in our field or animated movies. But my personal taste has nothing to do with the OPs question, i have no illusions, the stuff i am doing might inspire some people now. but Most of what i did and will do, will be faded before I even hit the grave. I mean the entertainment industry is pretty young in the scale of centuries, mickey mouse isn't even 100 years old yet. I kinda doubt that in a hundred years people will remember Emperors New Groove, no matter how much i like the style.
But thinking more about it, there are of course plenty of stylized artworks that withstood time. one of my favorite sculptures is thousands of years old, the Nefertiti bust. A lot of the tribal artwork all over the world is pretty stylized. Especially when you go back more than a few hundred years and into other non euro based artforms. I guess i am also biased in a sense here and didn't even think of some of the cool stuff that exists since ages. Your post was just too broad of a stance and itched me the wrong way.
Be really fucking good and/or lucky. Doing something significant helps too, like inventing a style of art (see: Jackson Pollock who is mostly famous for the style rather than objective quality of his work). Having your work shown somewhere important can help too, if it doesn't get displayed at a big venue it's rarely considered significant. I'm using significant in the way that it is typically used in the museum/art collection world here, what may be significant to you or your friends is different from significance in the typical art world sense.
Most digital and game art is trash, and that is by design. Not the quality of the work per se, but how it is consumed. Viewed and then almost instantly forgotten. In the grand scheme of things, the vast majority of it will be lost to the sands of time. Not only due to the fleeting nature of the medium, but for archival reasons (do you think you will be able to plug in your SCSI drive or open a psd in 300 years?).
Very sad yet very true...However, give it time. Vidoe game is still a very young medium and it really takes time before a medium evolves into a recognized ''art form''...might takes decades...centuries maybe...
Edit: Oh, you were talking about digital concept arts ( like those speed painting showcased on artstations) ? I thought it was about game art, my bad...
Yeh in this case, I agree. I've rarely seen a digital painting or concept art on ArtStation/DeviantArt that made me wow or stay in contemplation like I did looking at a Rembrandt or Gustave Klimt painting...
Strange though, we have more tools available yet so much of our work lacks..some sort of soul...:(
There is an over-saturation of artists and information these days. The greats did indeed create groundbreaking pieces but they are renowned because there were few like them for that time. Plus they resonated culturally across the aristocracy which made a lot of people appreciative of the works. That said, a lot of them took a very long time to achieve something which is relatively average by todays standards, we stand on the shoulders of giants and our work wont be seen as timeless like works which inspired us.
everyone ego is being inflated, so much so that you see a lot of work gains popularity based on the fact people think "hey, I could kinda do that" not "that's amazing and this guy is awesome". like pixelmasher said, create something which resonates with a lot of people, visual quality isn't the priority for aesthetic anymore, I think for work to be great these days it needs to be multi-faceted and speak to a lot of different people, and is created in a medium which appeals to them so they can share a sense of "Someone like me made this" because of how all these social media sites etc are making people egomaniacs
Not sure about that dude. Artists are very much in demand atm. No saturation if we are discussing with accuracy. Also What we now consider great and what was considered great at the time can vary considerably. Also We need to consider the cultural mindset at the time, The art they created had very different aims (propaganda usually), than the art we create today.
That being said, there are still works of art from ancient times that really do impress us. I guess less culturally based ideas and more conceptually based around the human brain/psychology etc.. like for example, complex works tend to impress us more than simple ones, shape psychology and gestalt and all the rest of it . (like circular objects are less threatening etc)
These things can help create an artifact that resonates throughout history.
I think for work to be great these days it needs to be multi-faceted and speak to a lot of different people, and is created in a medium which appeals to them so they can share a sense of "Someone like me made this" because of how all these social media sites etc are making people egomaniacs
Thanks! I think appealing to people is a large part of making good art .
Replies
Most digital and game art is trash, and that is by design. Not the quality of the work per se, but how it is consumed. Viewed and then almost instantly forgotten. In the grand scheme of things, the vast majority of it will be lost to the sands of time. Not only due to the fleeting nature of the medium, but for archival reasons (do you think you will be able to plug in your SCSI drive or open a psd in 300 years?).
Non-realistic art almost never has an expiration date. Cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse are classic examples of art that went through a few evolutions and then stayed the same for decades with no one complaining.
Of course, that doesn't mean all realism is necessarily dated. Museums have no problem staying in business displaying artifacts from hundreds of years ago.
There's also the fact some art becomes timeless through luck. The Emperor's New Groove was mostly forgotten for a decade, but thanks to a certain meme, people appreciate it again.
Id argue even if you invent a new technique, as soon as someone comes along and does something better with it you'll be forgotten most likely.
How many games have successfully cloned Nintendo's artstyle and received similar fanfare? I know some games that tried to copy Zelda, but were never heard of again.
Or when that new Guilty Gear game dropped and it nearly perfected "2D graphics that's actually 3D" I was expecting a whole bunch of clones to come in and one up it. But the only other game that did was ironically, by the same studio that made it!
But do not expect to be remembered, or even plan to be. Many names of today will fade away and will be replaced.
Having said that, even in games being the first to do something only matters until someone comes along and does it better.
Resident Evil in most peoples minds is the first survival horror game, even though it borrows a lot from Alone in the Dark and is a rough remake of Sweet Home on the NES. Wolfenstein was not the first FPS. GTA3 was not the first 3d sandbox game. MGS was not the first stealth game. You see where Im going with this.
In terms of raw art direction your Nintendo analogy doesnt make much sense, Zeldas art direction changes with every game. So visually they chase different style that others have done same as anyone else.
The gist I was getting was as long as a game is good or executes a concept really well, doesn't mean it has to be forgotten by newer ones. For example, I don't believe GTA 3 is not as relevant now because there are more open world games, but because Rockstar has since done newer things with the IP. GTA 5 is actually a last generation game and yet it still sells on next gen platforms because a lot people still see the game as worth playing as much as any newer PS4/XBO one.
See the above. Zelda's art changed per generation, but not because the art itself was old or irrelevant. You can see this with the Wind Waker series. Even on newer platforms, Toon Link is conceptually just as much the same as he was on Gamecube. Hardware/time also hasn't stopped Nintendo from re-using old graphics in their games. Mario's 8-bit sprite still remains untouched whenever it's brought back. Look at Mario Maker for example.
there is a really good book on the subject, called Hitmakers , they really crank into detail how things become popular and timeless, with a really great example about the 5 big impressionists, who where actually laughed at and looked down upon at the time, but are now considered timeless masters.
Interesting perspective. I think we are seeing a change though where film/ vr/ video games are having a much deeper impact on culture across the globe. Think Mario or Lara Croft in Tomb Raider. Or Even Last of Us etc... It makes sense considering the size of the games industry worldwide etc. In 100 years + game art will rise in cultural status to the same level we give ancient artifacts now. (well not the same but similar...)
This makes me think of the ancient Aztecs and a stunningly well preserved basketball court.
Also How games are being consumed is changing also, with DLC's and immersive storytelling etc.... I wonder how this effects its cultural power.
Thanks man! This is going to be a good read.
Edit: Resonance, this is a really important idea, you can see it with writers and tv series like game of thrones: Medievel settings but modern world problems
What seperates the books / films that you can read from hundreds of years ago and find them just as fresh and insightful (maybe more) than todays offerings?
I suppose archetypes etc play a factor...
Thanks to everyone for their insight I hope more ideas can be shared.
All the artists which work I remember had this part mastered.
Nuna wrote:
Open Question: How do you make art that lasts throughout time. That people can see in hundreds of years and still admire it?
...well without sounding a tad elitist, I think a question more akin to posting on another forum, preferably traditional in aspect other than here. Because digital media for example, with all due respect is ephemeral in nature, basically a collection of sampled dots projected onto a electronic display screen, so what would happen if someone and/or thing pulls the plug...?! or heaven forefend, a zombie apocalypse manifests (...the way things are heading at the moment globally, I wouldn't at all be surprised by the way) in the not too distant future...?!
Anyway on a serious note, the era for creating timeless visual artistic masterpieces has sadly been and gone, to be clear what I mean by that is specifically European art periods pertaining too the 14th century revival "Renaissance" and Baroque. Indeed one such Master for me, really an idol pretty much from childhood when I first laid eyes on his work via a high school library, namely:"The Seven Works of Mercy" by Michelangelo Merisi da Carravagio circa: 1607 (390 × 260 cm oil on canvas) currently residing in the church of Pio Monte della Misericordia, Naples, thus had consequently set my feet on a personal path of creative discovery.And anyway, don't go into things wanting to be remembered, because, really, how many people are remembered? In the spectrum of things, a ridiculously small percentage made a lasting name for themselves, and who knows how long even that remembrance will last? Caravaggio was breathtaking. Rembrandt. Bosch. Bouguereau. Will we always remember them? Certainly not. And many artists are forgotten first, and remembered later, upon rediscovery.
Basically, it's complicated, we live in a temporary universe, we live temporary lives, we make temporary art. We're lucky we're even here. To leave a real impact would be amazing, but how can you even judge whether you've made an impact? And what if you wind up hating the piece that makes you famous/remembered?
These sprite are 38 years old, and is probably more iconic today than it was in 1980:
These are 35 years old:
As to re-creating this from an artistic point of view?
- Be Iconic and immediately recognizable
- Be Tech-Irrelevant (technological bells and whistles actually distract from this)
- Be attached to something with VERY broad appeal (game, art, film etc).
- People who are not gamers, or even players of the game still need to know what it is when being referenced.
If I were to venture a guess, the games that hit on this somewhat recently were Minecraft and Pokemon GO (which is already a 22 year old IP).
***BTW Thx for the book recommend Pixelmasher, totally gonna read this****
i dunno man
Mickey Mouse isnt even 100 years old yet, and while a lot of things might stay timeless. others died out, be it for not updating their style to a more modernized look. others died exactly out of this.
Very successful brands die for various reasons, more or less stylized. It does happen.
I don't think there is a formula that one can follow and BAM you made something timeless that generations of people will love. I also think it comes down to a damn lot of skill and even more luck.
With realism, anyone can tell when art either gets close to looking like real life, or it looks completely fake to the human eye.
With stylized art, you're not holding a magnifying glass looking to see how many skin pores you can find, or if the eyelashes are lined up correctly. It's as good as your imagination wants it to be.
In regards to Medieval Art and Mickey Mouse, again, I think a distinction needs to be made that it wasn't the art that killed it or it has no place today. We still use black and white photos even though color exists. It's less popular, but the lack of color doesn't make it offensive to us.
What if I told you that Mickey Mouse's artstyle from the 1930s was still popular today? A game like Cuphead is a recent example where the artstyle did stand the test of time today. There are many things to judge about it but whether it's real or not, wouldn't be one of them.
Meanwhile, the same can't be said about old movie or game graphics that tried to be real. As impressive as they were, technology always improving makes these flaws far more obvious to spot, and thus modern audiences highly frown or complain what they're looking at is just uncanny or unreal.
Now the statement could be rephrased as "Make good, timeless stylized art" instead ... but then it becomes a completely circular argument
But my personal taste has nothing to do with the OPs question, i have no illusions, the stuff i am doing might inspire some people now. but Most of what i did and will do, will be faded before I even hit the grave.
I mean the entertainment industry is pretty young in the scale of centuries, mickey mouse isn't even 100 years old yet. I kinda doubt that in a hundred years people will remember Emperors New Groove, no matter how much i like the style.
But thinking more about it, there are of course plenty of stylized artworks that withstood time. one of my favorite sculptures is thousands of years old, the Nefertiti bust. A lot of the tribal artwork all over the world is pretty stylized. Especially when you go back more than a few hundred years and into other non euro based artforms. I guess i am also biased in a sense here and didn't even think of some of the cool stuff that exists since ages. Your post was just too broad of a stance and itched me the wrong way.
Very sad yet very true...However, give it time. Vidoe game is still a very young medium and it really takes time before a medium evolves into a recognized ''art form''...might takes decades...centuries maybe...
Edit: Oh, you were talking about digital concept arts ( like those speed painting showcased on artstations) ? I thought it was about game art, my bad...
Yeh in this case, I agree. I've rarely seen a digital painting or concept art on ArtStation/DeviantArt that made me wow or stay in contemplation like I did looking at a Rembrandt or Gustave Klimt painting...
Strange though, we have more tools available yet so much of our work lacks..some sort of soul...:(
everyone ego is being inflated, so much so that you see a lot of work gains popularity based on the fact people think "hey, I could kinda do that" not "that's amazing and this guy is awesome". like pixelmasher said, create something which resonates with a lot of people, visual quality isn't the priority for aesthetic anymore, I think for work to be great these days it needs to be multi-faceted and speak to a lot of different people, and is created in a medium which appeals to them so they can share a sense of "Someone like me made this" because of how all these social media sites etc are making people egomaniacs
Also What we now consider great and what was considered great at the time can vary considerably.
Also We need to consider the cultural mindset at the time, The art they created had very different aims (propaganda usually), than the art we create today.
That being said, there are still works of art from ancient times that really do impress us. I guess less culturally based ideas and more conceptually based around the human brain/psychology etc.. like for example, complex works tend to impress us more than simple ones, shape psychology and gestalt and all the rest of it
These things can help create an artifact that resonates throughout history.
Thanks! I think appealing to people is a large part of making good art